Talk:Sherman Miles

Coolidge
Beer in his 2002 article wondered whether Sherman Miles' second wife, Edith Lawrence Coolidge, was in any way related to Archibald Cary Coolidge, stating he could neither prove nor disprove a relation.

If Rootsweb is correct, then there is indeed a distant relation. According to Rootsweb, Edith Lawrence (1880-1975) was in 1st marriage married to Harold Jefferson Coolidge (1869-1934), father of the zoologist Harold Jefferson Coolidge, Jr. (1904-1985) and brother of Archibald Cary Coolidge.

Lupo 17:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Marburg Bloody Sunday
I don't see the connection between the Bloody Sunday at Marburg/Maribor and Sherman Miles' military career. Is there any report of Miles regarding that event? Did he or the other members of the Coolidge Mission write any report on it? Did it have any effect on Miles' career? If not, [ this addition] is a non-sequitur and should be removed again. The article is not about ethnic or other conflicts in the area, but about Sherman Miles. Lupo 09:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think there is very clear connection between the Bloody Sunday at Marburg/Maribor and Sherman Miles' military career. German population of Marburg used his visit to organize protest because they wanted Sherman Miles to see that they do not want to live in Slovenia but in German Austria. All sources about that event that are mentioned in the article are supporting that connection between his visit and protest that ended up with massacre. Maybe there is no report of Miles regarding that event, but that does not mean that above mentioned connection with Bloody Sunday at Marburg/Maribor did not exist.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, sure, the impending visit of Miles, LeRoy King, Kerner, and Martin was the reason the people demonstrated that day. I think that much is undisputed. But did it have any effect on Miles' military career? Apparently not. Miles' visit had an effect on events at Maribor, but the events at Maribor had no effect on Miles or his career. Which is why I think this addition here feels out of place. It's more at home in articles on the history of Carinthia, Lower Styria, or Yougoslavia, or on the foundation of the Austrian republic, or on the dissolution of Austria-Hungary, or, if it existed, on the Coolidge Mission and their work.
 * BTW, do you have any idea why it's called "bloody sunday" when in fact it was a Monday? Lupo 14:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The only mention of Marburg/Maribor in the reports of the Coolidge Mission is a recommendation that it should be part of Austria, with a proposed border to the south of the city (p. 519 in Papers relating to the foreign relations of the United States, The Paris Peace Conference, 1919, vol XII). Lupo 14:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not understand your logic. Why would we hide informations about events that are connected with his activities during his military career? His visit was reason for protests that ended up with massacre of 11 or 13 dead people and more than 60 wounded. I think that it is important event of his career that should not be hidden from the readers. Thank you for the link to his report, but I don't understand why do you insist that he did not mention the massacre in his report? Both Slovenian and German sources confirm that massacre happened, and that the reason for the protests was his visit to Marburg. The fact that he does not mention it in his report and the fact that it is called Bloody Sunday despite it happened at Monday does not mean that this event which was connected with his career should be hidden.
 * I try not to be stubborn and I am really open to consider any additional arguments you can present. If the only arguments are those you already presented (he did not mention the event in his reports, it happened at Monday not at Sunday and that event did not affected his career (I don't see why would it) then I propose to ask for third opinion? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not about "hiding" anything. I also didn't write it didn't happen. My question about the Sunday-Monday thing was real curiosity and has nothing to do whether the indicent should be mentioned here. The incident was important for the people at Maribor, but for Miles, his work as part of the Coolidge Mission, and his career, it seems to have been utterly irrelevant. It doesn't even appear to have had any influence on his demarcation recommendations (unless we could find some connection that his statement in his report #13 from February 12, 1919 that "Marburg (as we have seen) is so essentially Austrian" was prompted by it). Since this article is about Miles and not about Maribor, I feel that these details are out of place here unless we can back them up with some data on how this incident was important for him, his views, or is career, or otherwise did influence him. Or, if we had an article that covered the work of the Coolidge Mission in detail, then we might, in a section of their work regarding Carinthia, present the route they took, and take a closer look at events and recommendations, and then have a look at how the population of the area reacted to the fact that a U.S. team toured the area in order to figure out what their superiors at Paris should negotiate for, and then mention the incident in that connection. Lupo 10:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your well written explanation, but I have to say that it does not contain any additional argument. You are, of course, right that this article is about Miles. But protest was caused by his visit because he had active role in demarcation process. Protest resulted with 11 - 13 killed people and more than 60 wounded. I don't understand how can anybody consider that "utterly irrelevant". What do you think to find third opinion about this?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

There is one very important fact that was not presented in the article about massacre or about Miles. It was Sherman Miles who gave approval to German citizens of Marburg to organize protest that ended up with massacre. Here is source ( on page 135.

This additional information support my opinion that this event should be presented to the readers of this article because not only that protest were caused by Miles' visit, but they were allowed by him. The protests allowed by Miles ended up with death of 11-13 civilians and wounding of more than 60 are far from being "utterly irrelevant" by my opinion.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Additionally, on the page 140 of the same source is written that Miles fulfilled the wish of the protesters and went out to the balcony to greet them. But, although he allowed protest, he did not want to meet their delegation sending them to Rudolf Maister (!?)(page 140) who commanded the military units that massacred the people.
 * On the page 142 is quoted the report statement about the massacre written by professor Lawrence Martin, a member of the mission that visited Marburg and led by Sherman Miles (the use of weapons was not unjustified, although the first impression was not pleasant). That means there is a report of his mission about this event.
 * On the page 143 is written that the Coolidge commission and Sherman Miles were main responsible (!) for the massacre (glavnega krivca: na Coolidgevo komisijo na Dunajo, predsvem na samega Coolidgea in na Milesa (most responsible: The Coolidge commission in Vienna, above all Coolidge himself and Miles)
 * Taking above mentioned in consideration, I believe that leaving the information about massacre in the article is the least we should mention about this event if we want to follow the NPOV policy. I presented a source that contain information that Miles allowed the protest, greet the protesters from the balcony and then refused to meet them, sent them to deal with Rudolf Maister whose military units massacred them and that Miles was considered as one of the main responsible for the massacre. Later the member of his mission even supported the use of weapons in his statement about this event. Am I wrong because I don't insist on Miles' responsibility despite the sourced informations? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)